9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is order dated 16.08.2005 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 71,721/- alongwith interest payable thereon. 3. The respondents were engaged in manufacture of aluminium sections covered under chapter 76 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing credit under Rule 57A in relation to the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. It was revealed that for the period from April, 2004 to January, 2005 the respondents had been collecting Die Research & Development charges from their customers without including cost thereof in the assessable value of the final product nor disclosing the same in the monthly returns submitted to the department. After necessary investigation, show cause notice dated 29.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amortization without charging it separately under invoices or raising debit notes to the customer, set aside the order of the adjudicating authority simultaneously it has totally ignored the specific and clear admission by the General Manager and authorized signatory of the respondents that in fact during the relevant period the respondents had chosen to follow the procedure of recovering the cost of dies and development charges separately by issuing debit notes without any disclosure thereof to the department. 6. In Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2000 (117) ELT 578 (T), the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had clearly observed that but for the use of the mould he cannot manufacture his product. So the value of the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty is on the final product whether it be Encyclopaedia or the engineering or architectural drawings or any manual . Following the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order . 8. The law on the point involved in the matter, therefore, is well settled as stated above. 9. Learned Advocate for the respondents however has sought to rely upon the decision in the matter of Ashok Iron Works Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum reported in 2004 (168) ELT 198 (Tri.-Bang.), therein the Commissioner had demanded duty on development charges. It was the contention of the assessee that the department had failed to establish that the development charges were recovered from the customer for certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
